• Choose a category
• All
• Classic-Fiction

The WTO replaced the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) in 1995. From 1947 to 1994, GATT nations negotiated reductions in tariffs and other trade barriers through a series of discussion “rounds” identified by their location (the Uruguay Round of 1986–94, for example). By the time WTO succeeded GATT, the principal negotiations no longer concerned tariffs or intellectual property rights as much as they did issues related to environmental protection and food safety. For years, critics have complained that eliminating trade barriers will force countries to adhere to the lowest common denominator in food safety and environmental standards. As evidence, they point to WTO decisions that prevent France from rejecting hormone-fed beef raised in the United States or require the United States to accept Malaysian shrimp caught in nets that trap sea turtles. If WTO decides that genetically modified foods are safe, no member country is permitted to reject them.39

One reason why President Bill Clinton invited the WTO to meet in Seattle in 1999 was to resolve the “huge biotech problem” with European countries that were refusing American exports of transgenic corn and soybeans. Although most of the public demonstrations during that meeting were aimed at globalization in general (and labor and biopiracy issues in particular), they also focused on trade issues related to genetically modified foods.40 By the time of that meeting, international and national government groups were debating whether to allow the production or import of genetically modified foods, to require them to be labeled (and, if so, at what threshold level), or to ban them outright.

International decisions about such issues are difficult to track, as they change constantly in response to political pressures. When the European Union approved sales of transgenic corn in 1996, the biotechnology industry was optimistic that Europeans would readily accept genetically modified foods. In 1997, however, the European Parliament required the foods to be labeled, and in 1999 the European Union also required manufacturers to conduct risk assessments, public consultations, and post-market safety reviews. Some national governments permitted transgenic crops to be grown, but others did not. In mid-2000, Time magazine classified countries by their attitude toward genetically modified foods—pro-GM (Argentina, China), cautiously pro (Canada, U.S., India), very cautiously pro (Brazil, Japan), or strongly anti (Britain, France)—but the policies of these countries changed constantly in response to new information, ongoing pressures, and decisions of international bodies attempting to deal with issues raised by these foods.41 To illustrate the complexity of the international picture, table 13 summarizes decisions about transgenic foods made by various countries just during the 2001 calendar year.

TABLE 13. Actions of selected countries and the European Union regarding planting, labeling, or importing of genetically modified foods, 2001

Country

Action Taken

Argentina

Permits planting.

Australia

Permits planting, but also requires posting of locations of planting sites, investigation of violations, and imposition of fines. With New Zealand, issues guidelines for labeling.

Brazil

Permits planting, but requires permits and labeling.

China

Permits planting, but requires certification of production, sale, and import as safe for humans, animals, and environment.

Japan

Establishes labeling threshold of 5% for genetically modified corn or soybeans.

Philippines

Rules that failure to label foods containing genetically modified ingredients is punishable by prison (up to 12 years) and fines (up to $2,000).

Saudi Arabia

Bans import of transgenic animals; requires health certificates for transgenic plants; requires mandatory labeling of processed foods containing genetically modified ingredients.

Sri Lanka

Bans all transgenic foods as of September 1, but later postpones ban indefinitely.